User:Jackaloping/Aquatic biomonitoring/Entomological Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Jackaloping


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Jackaloping/Aquatic biomonitoring
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Aquatic biomonitoring
 * Aquatic biomonitoring

Evaluate the drafted changes
I'm going to begin with all the good things in your draft. I think it's great that you aim to add on additional details such as the Tigray example of minerals that influence water quality, and the rephrasing of wordy paragraphs is a good call to make the article easier to read and more understandable. Good catch on recognizing that sources for some paragraphs are missing, such as in the "Purpose" section. Finally, the grammatical error in the photo should definitely be fixed.

According to the wiki rules, I see that your article and ideas for contribution seem clear and easy to understand, I can't identify any biases - it's a neutral article, and most of your sources are reliable and there's many of them, which shows you're not just relying on one source. The only source that seems out of place is the very first one. I believe the previous wiki editor added that one maybe, but I tried looking for any part of it mentioning biomonitoring and I didn't find anything so maybe take a look at that source again and remove it if it's not necessary.

The content is relevant and up to date, and broken down into subheadings in an easy to follow manner. The images used are good representations of the topic - and you already called out the error in one of them.

Moving on, I do think that while rephrasing is good, I'm not sure if you aim to remove the section on Aquatic invertebrates in the "Indicator organisms" section because in your draft there's no information on them. However, if you just aim to expand on it later on, you could use a source such as this one (https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/canadian-aquatic-biomonitoring-network/science.html) to briefly describe why they are useful in biomonitoring or this source (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266597272200006X) specifically to highlight how benthic invertebrates are used in biomonitoring because they are very easy to sample and are cheap!

I also noticed in your draft the section titled "methods employed in aquatic biomonitroing" is empty, perhaps you can use this source: (chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://cdn.website-editor.net/a46ec8be333642209835c758be53898c/files/uploaded/OBBN%2520Protocol%2520Manual.pdf)

This document is an official government one so it should be a reliable source, and would be great to discuss the techniques used for biomonitoring (ex. the travelling kick and sweep method). You can also use it to add additional information like how they choose the appropriate sites for biomonitoring and certain protocols. Keep in mind however, the document is specific to Ontario but most of the techniques should apply to general biomonitoring so it should be good to use!

The addition of "Limitations" section is a great idea. A suggestion for that part is maybe you can discuss how a certain limitation is the need to actually be able to identify the organisms. Aquatic biomonitoring includes the identification and count of different insect orders; it requires you to go to the lab after collecting your sample and identifying each little bug friend. Thats a big limiting factor because not everyone is trained for that, and even if you are, it can be tricky to identify what specific family that insect is from sometimes! I don't have a set source for this (however the PDF I linked earlier probably has information about this - you can also just look up OBBN on google); but I took a course last semester that was all biomonitoring freshwater invertebrates and it was very tricky! There are classes and certification processes, at least in Ontario, that teach you all the essential protocols in order for you to be able to run a biomonitoring test (the OBBN certification). So a limitation is you need to be well trained to do it.

Also, maybe you could add an image of one of these sampling methods being done, to give a clearer view of what it entails, such as the travelling kick and sweep.

Overall I think the article in general is good, however your additions will surely make it better - your draft already shows that. You picked a great topic! I had fun reading all of that, goodluck :)